UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs
2764.png


7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Chaotic Pizzaparty said:
One of the reasons why I quit muh NHS was they were trying to indoctrinate Nursing Students to learn multiple languages on top of their heavy workload load even at uni a nursing student with a commute is easily 40 hours. They asked this on top of reporting issues to safeguarding along with other things like religious stuff and sexual health. The African diplomas are all fake but they will never come to admit the full scope out of shame. Like I said the other day it is all about saving face and that kind of admission would land them in international shit because then other countries would need to vet the immigrants who left and I can tell you, it's all fucking Africans. But I suspect there are a ton of fake Indian doctors too since I have had many sus conversations that have raised my eyebrows.

I can't tolerate either of them tbh because I think falsifying education is one of the worst things you can do. It's not only an insult to the people trying and working hard juggling life but the people you are so knowingly thieving or killing. I suspect the Letby case has a lot of these issues too as it is one of the more well-known cases and it explains why they tried to cover stuff up and the amateur errors. Letby is a shit nurse but it is a cover up of corruption and systematic negligence.
Click to expand...
My partner works in what was called Health Education England (NHS England) without giving information away that’ll get him in trouble. There are some NHS hospitals on his rotations that pay £20,000 to these African (mainly Nigerian) “doctors” to help them “put down roots” and put down mortgage deposits etc.

None of them do but they all just pocket the money and dip after a certain point. Because they are too stupid to finish the training. The NHS is genuinely stupid for doing that. You let in a person on doctor training with fake documents and pay for the privilege.
 
I am filled with much disappointment none of you posted the Whatsapp messages yet.

In one particularly shocking comment, the Gorton and Denton MP says he hopes a 72-year-old woman will soon be dead after she dared to ask about her bins.
The Stockport resident wrote to her local councillor saying she hadn't voted Labour, but added: 'As you have been re-elected I thought it would be an appropriate time to contact you with regard to the bin collections.'

After the councillor shared the letter among fellow Labour figures in the WhatsApp group, Mr Gwynne wrote a suggested response: 'Dear resident, F*** your bins. I'm re-elected and without your vote. Screw you. PS: Hopefully you'll have croaked it by the all-outs.' 'All-outs' are elections at which every council seat is contested at once.
Accepting his fate last night, Mr Gwynne wrote on social media: 'I deeply regret my badly misjudged commments and apologise for any offence I've caused. I've served the Labour Party all my life and it was a huge honour to be appointed a minister by Keir Starmer. I entirely understand the decisions the PM and the party have taken and, while very sad to have been suspended, will support them in any way I can.'
The messages were exchanged in a group called Trigger Me Timbers, which Mr Gwynne shares with more than a dozen Labour councillors, party officials and at least one other MP, all based on the outskirts of Manchester.
The MoS gained access to thousands of messages from the closed group, which was set up in 2019, and discovered a barrage of abusive texts. Among them are:
  • Mr Gwynne saying someone 'sounds too Jewish' and 'too militaristic', apparently from their name alone;
  • Racist comments about veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott, mocking her historic achievement in becoming the first black MP at either Despatch Box for Prime Minister's Questions;
  • Sexist comments about Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner performing a sex act;
  • Mr Gwynne mocking a local Labour leader as 'Colin C*mface'.

    The politician also made offensive remarks about Jewish people.
    Discussing an upcoming Labour meeting, a member of the group asks if Marshall Rosenberg would be there, in apparent reference to a late American psychologist whose conflict management techniques might have been useful in heated debates. Mr Gwynne responds: 'No. He sounds too militaristic and too Jewish. Is he in Mossad?'
    In 2018, Mr Gwynne made headlines when it was revealed he was in a Facebook group called Labour Supporters in which anti-Semitic messages were shared. At the time he responded: 'I was added to this Facebook group without my knowledge or permission. I DO NOT support the posts and I ABHOR anti-Semitism. It has absolutely NO place in the Labour Party or in society. End of.'
    But months later, he was taking part in anti-Semitic banter in the WhatsApp group, including taking an apparently mocking tone to those who thought it inappropriate. 'Geoffrey the Giraffe says don't be nasty to the Jews,' he posted. It's not clear who he was referring to, but Geoffrey was the logo of the Toys R Us stores.

    Alex Hearn, co-director of Labour Against Anti-Semitism, said asking if a person with a Jewish name is an agent of the Israeli spy agency Mossad feeds to an enduring anti-Semitism trope.


    He said: 'This so-called 'banter' about Jews was unnecessary and unpleasant. Themes of disloyal infiltrators crosses the line into classic anti-Jewish racism, and should not be acceptable discourse among Labour officials, activists or anywhere in our society.'
    Mr Gwynne also made race-based jokes on Trigger Me Timbers while talking about veteran black Labour MP Diane Abbott, when she stood in for Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons in October 2019.
    In the historic move, she became the first black parliamentarian to represent their party at the weekly clash. When one member asks if this pioneering moment for black Britons was a 'joke', Mr Gwynne told the group it was 'because it's Black History Month apparently'.
    A councillor then suggests other black Labour MPs, living and dead, asking: 'Was David Lammy not available? I'd also take the corpse of Bernie Grant [the black Labour MP who died in 2000].'
    Mr Gwynne adds: 'Or Desmond Swayne? Justin Trudeau??'
    At the time, both Tory MP Swayne and the Canadian prime minister were engulfed in racism rows after photos of them in offensive 'blackface' caricatures had emerged in two separate incidents.
    Bishop Desmond Jaddoo, a prominent black campaigner, said: 'It's amazing when a black person rises to prominence, they have to put up with these outrageous comments. They have racial connotations that have no place in our society. If a Minister has these kinds of views, then they should take stock.'


    Angela Rayner was also mocked by the group, particularly by Mr Gwynne. In March 2021, when the deputy Labour leader faced criticism for claiming £249 Apple wireless headphones on expenses, Mr Gwynne reposted a tweet from the parody account Tammy Pax MP. It read: 'I don't see what the problem is. It's literally impossible to give a b*** *** while wearing wired headphones. Anyone with a similar background to Angela would understand this.'
    Another outrageous exchange came after a councillor mentions a constituent called 'Nick' who asked for more cycle lanes. Mr Gwynne replies: 'I had positive visions of him getting mown down by an Elsa Waste HGV while he's cycling to the Fallowfield Loop [cycle lane]. We couldn't be that lucky!' The MP also mocked a senior party figure in Tameside called Colin Bailey, 61, the vice-chair of Labour's Audenshaw branch.
    In January 2019, appearing to reference a local party victory, Mr Gwynne asked: 'How did Colin C*mface take it?' He added later: 'Can we post the Colin C*mface Tory supporting tweets now?'
    A shocked Mr Bailey – who has campaigned for Mr Gwynne in the past – told the MoS yesterday: 'I am angry about this, if this is directed at me. Andrew never said anything like this before.'
    Nigel Huddleston MP, co-chairman of the Conservative Party, said: 'These comments are sickening. It is shameful that a Labour Minister thinks it is appropriate to wish for the death of one of his own constituents – especially as his government has cruelly taken away Winter Fuel Payments and left vulnerable pensioners to freeze, and just goes to show how out of touch Labour are.'
    And David Sedgwick, the councillor who posted a photo of the letter from the pensioner about the bins, said Mr Gwynne's comments 'are totally not acceptable'.
    Mr Gwynne has been in politics since 1996, when he was elected as England's youngest councillor at the age of 21. He became an MP in 2005, and after last year's General Election was appointed Minister for Public Health.
    Labour last night confirmed Mr Gwynne had been 'administratively suspended' from the party while the messages were investigated. They added: 'Swift action will be taken if individuals are found to have breached the high standards expected of party members.'
Click to expand...
1739215943862.png
That said there's lots of other stupid to work through.

Nooo, Musk can't give Reform money, we'll make it illegal before he does.
Other foreign donor who's already bought influence with the current government says no.
Labour reportedly dropped a plan to ban foreign political donations after an intervention from Waheed Alli, the Labour peer who paid for Keir Starmer’s clothes and glasses.
The plan would have scuppered any potential donations from the billionaire Elon Musk to Reform UK. It would have made it illegal to donate unless donors were registered to vote in the UK or via companies owned by people based in Britain.

Labour has received £4m from a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands, Quadrature Capital, though it pays corporation tax in the UK on profits.
But Lord Alli, the party’s fundraising chief in opposition, is said to have stopped the planned speech by Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, and Gordon Brown to announce the changes, according to a new book about Labour’s path to power.

The former Labour prime minister had already booked accommodation in London for the speech announcing the changes when it was canned, according to Get In, by Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund.
Labour and Alli declined to comment.
The book contains a leaked policy paper for the speech intended to take place in December 2023 at Chatham House – and suggests it had been signed off by Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s now chief of staff.
Though McSweeney was reportedly concerned about seeming anti-donor, he is said to have agreed the plan on the basis it would prevent donations from those without “skin in the game”.
A Labour source told the authors that Alli had intervened to pull the announcement with a week to go, with no explanation.
Labour is said to be examining proposals to limit how much individuals and companies can donate to political parties as part of an effort to tighten the rules around money in UK politics. The Institute for Public Policy Research has recommended that ministers limit individual and corporate donations to political parties to £100,000 a year.
In its manifesto, Labour committed to “protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties”. At the core of this promise was an aim to tighten protections around foreign interference in UK democracy.
Donation caps are among a number of measures the government is looking at as part of plans for an election and democracy bill in the next parliamentary session. The bill did not form part of the king’s speech in July.
According to the policy paper quoted in the book, Rayner’s proposal was to “close loopholes in UK donation law which currently allow dodgy money to enter our politics – primarily through the Tory party – via shell companies or companies with no connection to the UK.
“This policy will provide us with a robust defence to the Tories’ attack on our donations by laying out with full transparency the robustness of our donation due diligence, and inviting the Tories to close loopholes which allow foreign money into UK democracy.”
Alli, a businessman who had donated more than £100,000 to Labour for more than 20 years, drew public attention when he was given a Downing Street pass when Labour won the election in July last year, which he then returned.
The emergence that he had then donated thousands for Starmer and his wife Victoria’s clothes and eyewear became known as the “passes for glasses” affair and led to accusations of cronyism, since the peer had no formal role in No 10.
In mid-September, it emerged that Starmer had initially failed to declare £5,000 of gifts from Alli used to buy clothes for his wife. He approached the parliamentary authorities to make a late declaration after being given fresh advice on what should be disclosed. The standards commissioner decided not to investigate.
Click to expand...
BT dumping their diversity targets for bonuses. Not, I suspect, soon enough to save themselves.
BT is to scrap diversity measures in its manager bonus scheme in one of the clearest signs yet that British business is rethinking the role of ethnic and gender representation targets.
The former state telecoms monopoly has told major investors that it intends to replace the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) component of its scorecard with a measure of employee engagement.
The moves are being made despite criticism in recent days by Allison Kirkby, BT chief executive, of companies that are “stepping back from their commitment to inclusion”.
BT’s new system is scheduled to come into effect in April after receiving what it told The Telegraph was “strong support” from shareholders.
Under the current system 10pc of the annual bonus payable to up to 37,400 managers is based on targets for the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, and on measures of employee engagement among under-represented groups.

Next year a survey of engagement of all employees will underpin the calculation.
Ms Kirkby, who took the top job a year ago, has been working on the change in the background as part of a strategic overhaul. She has advocated for dropping DEI from the manager bonus scorecard despite a memo to staff last week in which she reaffirmed BT’s commitment to the movement.
Ms Kirkby said: “I believe we need to be as diverse as the customers we service, to be the customer-centric company we aspire to be, and to be able to live up to our purpose.
“When we determine to be inclusive, we create an environment where everyone, no matter their background or characteristics, feels respected, valued and like they belong.”
She made the comments in response to decisions by major US companies including Meta and McDonald’s to hail the return of Donald Trump by abandoning DEI initiatives.

​


Ms Kirkby said: “It sends the message that these things are optional, temporary or not worth prioritising. I want to be absolutely clear: that’s not what we believe at BT.”

Nevertheless, BT’s move away from DEI in its bonus scorecard has the potential to improve payouts for managers.
In last year’s scheme, it did not hit either its target to ethnic minority and disability representation, or on employee engagement for under-represented groups. On the latter measure, BT’s performance deteriorated and it did not meet the minimum threshold.
The company was among British organisations to ramp up its DEI efforts in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, which centred on the US murder of a black man, George Floyd, by a white police officer.
The following year, BT launched a “manifesto” which included a target for a quarter of its UK staff to be from an ethnic minority background by 2030. Last year’s figure was 16pc.
A spokesman said that despite the planned changes to its bonus scorecard, the target remained in place. The top 550 senior managers are eligible for an additional personal bonus which will continue to include DEI measures.
The BT spokesman said: “We remain committed to our inclusion and representation targets and are making good progress towards them.
“Inclusion will remain part of our senior management bonus calculations and we have received strong support from our shareholders on the proposals to amend our group scorecard.”
Bankers and investors are calling on the City regulator to tear up plans to impose diversity targets on companies amid concerns that extra red tape would slow growth.
One source who has held private meetings with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to discuss the plans said there was “an undercurrent of ‘we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this’”.
They added: “There is a risk the FCA is on course to introduce a cumbersome reporting regime. The only certainty of its impact will be to create jobs in HR.”
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, who has vowed to turbocharge growth, has also received warnings from three members of the Conservative frontbench arguing that the FCA’s diversity drive could cost the City up to £1bn.
Major US investors are under particular pressure from DEI critics as the tide turns politically. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, was once forced to deny claims his company was “woke” after pursuing a focus on so-called ethical investing.
BlackRock is BT’s fifth-biggest shareholder with a 3.8pc stake.
BT bosses have this week been summoned to meetings with Sunil Bharti Mittal, the Indian billionaire who became the biggest investor in the former telecoms monopoly after agreeing to take a stake of nearly 25pc last summer.
Mr Mittal, who is one of India’s richest men, will meet more than a dozen BT executives during two days of meetings which highlight his outsized influence, although BT has insisted the meetings are routine.
It disappointed the City last week with figures showing the impact of tougher broadband competition.
Click to expand...
Because they will never get over it the BBC try to blame Clarkson for a privately organised and completely legal pony and trap event.
Police warned people to avoid the area around Jeremy Clarkson's pub on Saturday morning because of pony and trap races nearby.
The former Top Gear presenter's establishment, known as The Farmer's Dog, in Asthall, near Burford in Oxfordshire, opened to the public in August.
Due to the "large gathering" of pony and traps at the pub there was a "significant police presence" in the area, Thames Valley Police said.
People were asked to stay clear "to ensure public safety and minimise disruption". The event has since ended.
Pony and trap racing is a type of racing where horses pull a cart and driver behind them.
A police spokesperson said it was not an illegal activity, "however we have been on scene to maintain the safety of the public and monitor for any dangerous or criminal activity by those taking part in the event".
They said the event on the A40 area of Witney was "privately organised".

They added: "The disruption to the road network was minimal and the event has now finished. One vehicle was seized for having no insurance.
"We will always work to maintain public safety and minimise the disruption to our communities and take robust action where we have legal grounds to do so."
Clarkson acquired the pub, formerly known as The Windmill, last year.
He also owns Diddly Squat Farm, which has featured in the Amazon Prime Video documentary series Clarkson's Farm.
Click to expand...
Home office study on incels is overwhelmingly (75%) entirely anonymous people. Remember this is the high quality of data that will be used for massive government overreach.
Hundreds of men who identified as “incels” or involuntary celibates were paid by a government body to take part in a survey.
Academics working for the Home Office’s Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) gave the men £20 or $20 each for completing a 40-minute survey as part of an effort to investigate incel behaviour.

A total of 561 men in the UK and the US took part in the research but some did not want to complete the payment form out of fears that their personal data may be misused. The compensation of 126 of the participants was donated to the men’s mental health charity Movember.
Men who identify as incels forge a sense of identity around their perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships and can display high levels of misogyny that may slip into an endorsement of violence.

Incels are said to be an emerging terrorism risk in the UK. Their shared beliefs have been identified as a motivating factor in terrorist attacks abroad, including in the murder of 10 people in a van attack in Toronto in 2018.
Joe Whittaker, a lecturer at Swansea University who led the incel research with William Costello from the University of Texas at Austin, said he recognised that the payment of people who hold hateful views raised ethical questions but that the need for a broad sample “tips the ethical scales”.
He said: “All of research ethics is about trade-offs between two competing goods. You have this issue of a very hard to reach, difficult to research population. Trying to find a way into that is definitely good.
“On the other side, I can understand why some people might take some level of objection to this is that some incels are accused, and, in several cases, have done some pretty bad stuff. I’m not just talking about ultraviolence. I’m talking about being, frankly, horrible misogynists.”
It was deemed ethical to pay the participants a payment that was above the “national living wage” of £11.44 but not “too big that it ends up attracting people that you don’t want to answer the survey”, Whittaker said.
The researchers concluded that while there may be apprehension about paying incels, “not all incels have extreme views and that it would be ethically questionable to assume so and withhold compensation typically given to participants in psychology studies on that basis”.
Whittaker said: “The thing that made us feel like it was a justifiable decision, is that … the problem with looking at content on the internet is that in almost all circumstances it’s driven by a very, very small number of people …
“Therefore the problem that you get is when you start to make generalisations, [such as] all incels are terrible misogynists, you start to run up against this problem of, well, actually, are they, or is it just the ones that actually did post?”
Approximately 100 participants tried to complete the survey a second time in order to be paid twice but were blocked, Whittaker said.
The research for the CCE, which had a £1.7m budget last year, found high levels of perceived victimhood, anger and misogyny with 5% of those participating saying that violence was “often” justified against those who harmed their community.
The participants, who were recruited through social media and chat forums, were predominantly in their mid-20s, heterosexual, childless and chose “involuntarily celibate” as their relationship status.
Ninety-nine respondents (18%) said they had communicated with another incel in person in the past year.
When asked if violence against people whom incels perceive as causing harm to them could be justified, about one-quarter picked either “sometimes” or “often”. Slightly more than 5% said violence was often justified. The average response was “never” or “rarely”.
The incels were said to typically display extremely poor mental health, with high incidences of depression and suicidal ideation. One in five said they had contemplated suicide every day for the past two weeks.
Whittaker said it would be important that the government’s Online Safety Act in seeking to clean up the internet did not drive incels into more difficult to access parts of the internet.
A spokesperson for the commission said: “The CCE provides government with advice on all forms of extremism and commissions independent research to help shape policy.
“This study required direct engagement with incels in order to understand the demographics and psychology behind a largely anonymous online community.
“Participant compensation was subject to rigorous ethical approval from Swansea University’s faculty of medicine, human and life sciences ethics committee. The findings of this study help government understand misogyny in society.”
Click to expand...
Racial aggravation charge against a white person? Ah of course, the person was a police officer.
Chelsea striker Samantha Kerr has denied using "whiteness as an insult" in an exchange with police at Twickenham station, where she called one officer "stupid and white".
The Australia international denies a charge of causing racially aggravated harassment to PC Stephen Lovell during an incident in south-west London in the early hours of 30 January 2023.
When it was put to her under cross-examination at Kingston Crown Court that she "chose to show hostility" towards the officer "because of his whiteness", she said "that's not what I meant".
In evidence, Ms Kerr said she was "antagonised" by officers after she was taken to the police station by a taxi driver following a dispute.


Footage of Sam Kerr calling PC Stephen Lovell "stupid and white" was played to the jury on Monday
Ms Kerr was with her partner, West Ham midfielder Kristie Mewis, when the incident allegedly happened.
The striker has previously told the court the driver took the couple to Twickenham police station after she "spit vomited" out of the window of his vehicle while Ms Mewis smashed the rear window as the driver had locked the doors.
At the station, Ms Kerr is alleged to have become "abusive and insulting" towards PC Lovell.
At the court on Thursday, Ms Kerr was asked by prosecutors if she was using PC Lovell's "whiteness as an insult".
She responded: "No, that's not what I meant."
Prosecutor Bill Emlyn Jones KC said to Ms Kerr: "At the moment of expressing your hostility to him because of what you thought was his stupidity, you also chose to show hostility towards him because of his whiteness."
To which Ms Kerr replied: "That's not what I meant."
Mr Emlyn Jones replied: "It's what you did, isn't it?"
"It's what I did, yes," replied Ms Kerr.
In reference to her calling PC Lovell "stupid and white", the prosecutor asked Ms Kerr: "What did his race have to do with anything?"
Ms Kerr replied: "I thought it was him using his privilege and power over me because he perceived me to be something I'm not."
Later, she added: "I was trying to express that they would never, because of their power and privilege, ever have to experience what we had just gone through, in fear of our lives."

Ms Kerr told the court on Wednesday she had experienced racism
In cross-examination, Ms Kerr was also asked why she had mentioned Chelsea and her lawyers in the exchange with the police officers at the station.
She said she was trying to "make myself feel protected, bluff".
Mr Emlyn Jones said to Ms Kerr that she was "throwing your weight about", to which she replied "no".
He said there was "no basis and no evidence" for her accusation that the police were motivated by race during the incident.
She replied: "That's how I perceived it".

The court previously heard on Wednesday that she had sworn at the police and said "this is a racial thing".
When asked about these comments, Ms Kerr said: "I believed they were treating me differently because of what they perceived to be the colour of my skin – particularly PC Lovell's behaviour.
"The way he was accusing me of lying, and later arresting me for criminal damage even though Kristie said it was just her (who smashed the taxi's window).
"At the time, I thought they were trying to put it on me."
She added on Thursday: "(It was) the way he was responding to me, cutting me off, names he was calling me, being dismissive."
Ms Kerr also said in court her perception was shaped by how officers were treating her differently to her partner Ms Mewis.

West Ham midfielder Kristie Mewis was in the taxi with her partner Ms Kerr
Ms Mewis also gave evidence in court on Thursday.
Speaking about the journey with the taxi driver, she said she had not been driven that fast before and that it was "like nothing I've experienced".
"I felt out of control and like someone else had control over me and that was obviously very scary… I didn't know if it was a kidnapping or if we were going to crash.
"All of the horrible things you think about in your head; I didn't know if that was going to happen," she told the court.

​

When asked about how police treated them after the incident, Ms Mewis told the court: "PC Lovell was immediately dismissive. He wasn't believing what we were saying.
"We were saying we had been taken against our will, we couldn't get out and (the driver) was driving like crazy … he was dismissive in a way in which he didn't want it to be true.
"It felt a little bit like gaslighting - the story repeated back was different or they were manipulating it back onto us."
Asked if she noticed a difference between the way police treated them, Ms Mewis said: "Yes. PC Lovell was more snide and shorter with Sam.
"He didn't believe what she was saying and dismissive with her."

The defendant is the all-time scorer for the Australian international team
In an exchange with the prosecution about calling the officers "stupid and white", Ms Mewis said: "I think it was her truth in how she was feeling.
"I think she has been treated differently, and spoken to differently for her whole life.
"And I think that she was feeling the same thing that she has felt before and the things I have seen."
The trial continues.
Click to expand...
A kind soul has the video over here of the initial racist remarks

Assisted dying bill keeps chugging on of course. Unless I misheard Kim Leadbeater on the BBC today she was talking about protecting doctors from civil liability in the case of negligence. While I can't find confirmation of it a skim of her proposed bill includes the words liability but nothing about negligence, something that seems a major omission. Probably why she's only calling supportive expert witnesses.

Kim Leadbeater has been criticised over an eleventh-hour bid to select expert witnesses in secret as members of a House of Commons committee start to scrutinise her assisted dying bill.
The Labour MP’s last-minute amendment was backed by committee members yesterday, meaning much of the session took place in private as it met for the first time.
Ms Leadbeater had tabled a motion on Monday night for the committee to sit in private to discuss which experts it hears from in the coming weeks.
Danny Kruger, a leading opponent of the Bill and a member of the committee scrutinising it, opposed the move and said there was ‘clear public interest’ in decisions being made openly.
The Tory MP said it was right the public should understand why certain witnesses were chosen and others were not, adding: ‘And if there are concerns about the witnesses, they should be aired publicly.’
He further claimed that there is an ‘inherent imbalance’ in the experts who are due to be called and said: ‘Of the getting on for 60 names that have been put to us, 38 of them are in favour of this Bill and in favour of the principle of assisted dying.’
However Ms Leadbeater said it would be ‘inappropriate to discuss named individuals’ and their suitability as witnesses, and that, while transparency is important, ‘so is respecting individuals’ privacy’.

The Labour MP said she is ‘very open’ to hearing how safeguards can be strengthened and added that the number of expert witnesses due to be called is ‘unprecedented for a private member’s bill.’
Last night former Home Secretary James Cleverly expressed concerns about the move, posting on X: ‘This is not reassuring me that getting good legislation is the priority for the proponents of the Bill.
‘I’ve seen this before. People become so focused on getting the win, they lose sight of the importance of getting a balance of views.’
And Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said: ‘I believed Kim Leadbetter when she assured us that sunlight would win the day and there was to be full public scrutiny of the Bill. I now know that wasn’t true.’

‘The Bill should not proceed under these circumstances,’ he added.

The Bill would see terminally ill adults in England and Wales with less than six months to live legally allowed to end their lives, subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge.

Yesterday’s session was to agree dates over the course of the next few months as well as to decide who will be called to give evidence to the committee.

From next week, the committee will hear oral evidence from medical and legal professionals and line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill will begin in February.
Click to expand...
 
teriyakiburns said:
Maybe they mistook it for a brony convention? I'd warn people to keep away from that in their place.
Click to expand...
I am almost certain you've seen the BBCs pro-furry article that got posted here recently. I suspect bronies are also considered a protected group given the crossover between them and furries.
 
Chunky Salsa said:

Fucking instantly. Exactly as people said it would happen. The bill is the thin tip to let in the wedge of trying to convince the vulnerable in society to kill themselves. Inks barely even dry and they already want it made easier. Ghouls.
Click to expand...

It is understood Leadbeater does not support expanding the scope of the bill to include those with 12 months to live.
Click to expand...

Of course she doesn't. It's far too short.
 
Coolio55 said:
I bring an important discovery:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NHv6owsCvw
Click to expand...
Why do these old building have clock towers, and why aren't any of them set right? Same reason that they retired the speaking clock.

There was a time before everyone had a smartphone and watches weren't exactly accurate, so there was a need for a (or multiple) common shared source of "the time", especially at a place where people would frequent (e.g. supermarkets, churches, the post office, banks, rail/bus station, etc.). They are less of a necessity now and too many people are too lazy and/or cheap to maintain them; At least the local Tesco had the decency to remove the hands from theirs, I suppose that's one way to deal with people complaining that the time was wrong.
 
Chaotic Pizzaparty said:
Those Watsapp messages are as cold as dog piss against a wall in winter. They'd have a heart attack reading here.
Click to expand...
Has been interesting watching normies on mainstream channels observe that a single one of those messages would have got them an expedited sentence for some sort of equality act protected class aggravated public order offence, and anyone who witnessed it and did not report could also face penalties whereas the penalty for these goons is...Nothing. Still MPs, to be brought back in when the next thing happens.

This is the sort of incident that would get an organisation like Reform banned as an extremist hate group. There are people serving time for far less.
 
Chunky Salsa said:

Fucking instantly. Exactly as people said it would happen. The bill is the thin tip to let in the wedge of trying to convince the vulnerable in society to kill themselves. Inks barely even dry and they already want it made easier. Ghouls.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s Teflon coated. ‘A panel of experts.’ Ffs who is an expert on killing people?
The WhatsApp messages show the total contempt for the public they’re supposed to serve. I don’t give a shit if they’re mocking dianne abbot, but to be bold enough to wish death on your constituents is despicable. All these people hate us.
 
Otterly said:
Of course they do. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s Teflon coated. ‘A panel of experts.’ Ffs who is an expert on killing people?
Click to expand...
Social workers and psychiatrists apparently.

Anyway, I think we could all do with something lighter. Let's have a look at the ballard of Speech Debelle
Mercury Prize-winning musician Speech Debelle has been ordered to pay Arts Council England nearly £10,000 in costs after claims by the former relationship manager of alleged harassment and persecution by ACE colleagues were judged to be groundless by an employment tribunal.

Debelle, real name Corynne Elliot, had claimed that a number of separate incidents of microaggressions, harassment and bullying led to work-related stress and anxiety and her eventual resignation from the role in August 2021.

But at a hearing in October 2023 a judge ruled in ACE’s favour, dismissing the claims as “unreasonable”.

Following an application by ACE to claim back some of the costs of the case from both Elliot and the legal firm that represented her – Graceland Solicitors – as there was “no reasonable basis” for the claims, employment judge Garry Smart ruled in the funding body’s favour.

Elliot has been ordered to pay ACE £9,870 in costs while the claim for costs against Graceland Solicitors was rejected.

​

Setting out his reasons for the decision, employment judge Smart said it was clear to the panel that Graceland advised Elliot that her claim was weak and she should withdraw it, and also highlighted the potential for costs consequences if she failed to withdraw it.

“Discrimination allegations are damaging to people emotionally, physically and reputationally. After all, any serious allegations are unpleasant and can result, even if the allegations has been disproven beyond any doubt, in the accused becoming stigmatised just as much as the accuser might be,” he said.

“Discrimination allegations suggest the individual accused is in some way immoral, which can be incredibly hurtful, upsetting and can result in real physical and financial harm for an individual.”

“Allegations of discrimination can result in people losing their jobs, livelihoods and personal relationships.

“It is therefore an exceptional case when a claimant brings discrimination claims knowing that they were not discrimination at the very time the events happened and before the claim was raised, which the claimant has done here.”

​

ACE, whose lawyers had previously said the costs claim was a “matter of integrity”, said it had been seeking £40,000 in costs – £20,000 each from Elliot and her legal firm.

Elliot told Arts Professional that during the hearing the legal firm that initially represented her offered to pay ACE £20,000 but the offer was refused because it would have involved no contribution from her, a claim ACE denies.

“There was some back and forth over telephone with one of the suggestions from ACE being that I pay as little as £1,000 and Graceland pay £19,000 which I declined,” Elliot said.

“Myself and [my] legal team made no offer of payment at all. Because I was not willing to pay anything, which would have been an act of submission on my behalf, they refused the offer.



“This [is] a shameful display of why ACE care only about their public image and do not take their ‘responsibility as custodians of taxpayers’ money seriously, as they have previously claimed.

“This is further evidence of the campaign against me as someone who spoke up.”

She added that she stands by her claims.

“Racism cases are notoriously difficult to prove, especially against a large institution like ACE with a very expensive and aggressive legal team,” she said.

“Despite the case not going as I had wished, I hope more people will come forward and that ACE actually listens and learns in order to make their working environment less harmful for their employees, as well as ensuring that the public funding they are provided is fairly distributed without bias.”

An ACE spokesperson said: “The unanimous judgment of the tribunal was that the claims against Arts Council England should be dismissed, and that Arts Council England staff acted professionally and appropriately.”

“We take our responsibility as custodians of taxpayers’ money seriously and therefore, based on the exceptional comments of the judge on the merits of Arts Council England’s case as the claimant, we sought to recover a proportion of our legal costs, both from the litigant, and from the firm of solicitors who initially represented her.

“The above account [of discussions in relation to settling the costs claim] is inaccurate, and does not reflect conversations that were had at the time.”
Click to expand...
Sounds fairly dull right? Oh no, the reason behind this case, that she blames on racism, is because she was using a company card for her own convenience.
A Mercury Prize-winning rapper has been ordered to pay Arts Council England £10,000 after suing them for race discrimination - because they asked her to repay them for takeaways she bought on her work card.
Corynne Elliot, known as Speech Debelle, claimed the organisation was 'bugging' her for asking for four months' worth of food and taxi journeys she had paid for with a procurement card.
As part of her case, the 41-year-old also told an employment tribunal that being asked to talk about her knowledge of hip-hop culture was harassment.
After her case was dismissed, the charity sought to recover their legal costs from Miss Elliot and her solicitors, saying it could have been up to £40,000.
In June this year, she setup a fundraiser to 'raise awareness and case costs' which only saw 60 people donate £1,273 out of the £5,000 goal.
However, she has now been ordered to pay £9,870 with an employment judge declaring that bringing these discrimination allegations was 'dreadful and unacceptable' behaviour.
EJ Garry Smart said: 'Discrimination allegations are damaging to people emotionally, physically and reputationally, after all, any serious allegations are unpleasant and can result, even if the allegations have been disproven beyond any doubt, in the accused becoming stigmatised just as much as the accuser might be.'
Miss Elliot won the Mercury Prize in 2009 for her debut album, Speech Therapy, and a remix of the lead single 'Spinnin' was an official anthem for the London 2012 Olympics.

Since then she has released two more critically acclaimed albums, Freedom of Speech and Tantil Before I Breathe as well as appearing on Celebrity Masterchef.

The tribunal, held in central London, heard that Miss Elliot started working for Arts Council England as a relationship manager in August 2017.

It was there that she started the Black Influencers Masterclass and Programme which helped artists of colour to access funding.

In December 2020 the charity began trying to recover money from Miss Elliot for unauthorised use of her procurement card.

This was due to the fact that over a period of four months she had used the work card to pay for takeaways, taxi journeys and a driving license renewal, the tribunal heard - but she claimed she had been using the wrong card in her Apple Pay wallet.

She tried to claim the discrimination began in late 2019, after her performance at work had been questioned, but an internal grievance process did not uphold her claims.

In November 2019 when a senior manager, Claire Toogood, asked to meet with Miss Elliot about some time critical work she had not done.

At the time, the rapper was speaking to another relationship manager when Ms Toogood 'politely interrupted' their conversation to tell the rapper she was ready to meet - and Miss Elliot asked for 10 minutes.

Then, during the meeting Miss Elliot tried to get another colleague to write the letters and when Ms Toogood said this was not possible she laughed at her before 'abruptly' leaving the meeting.

Miss Elliot told the tribunal that Ms Toogood's behaviour was an example of 'violence against diverse people' and that she had been 'hostile and angry' during the meeting.

However, EJ Smart concluded that the interaction had nothing to do with race and that Miss Elliot 'did not genuinely believe' this was discrimination.

The rapper also claimed that her line manager, Huey Walker, knew about wider racism concerns at the arts organisation and did nothing about them.

This was based on text messages in 2019 between Mr Walker, who is mixed race, and Natalie Pryce who told him that she had heard there was a 'division' in the music team between black and white employees and that people thought she was 'doing no work'.

Mr Walker said they would discuss it tomorrow and Ms Pryce responded that it was 'sad' they had to work harder to 'appease the white members of the team'.

EJ Smart found that Miss Elliot did not know if any action had or had not been taken after these messages and that they were not direct discrimination against the rapper.

Two years later, in 2021, Miss Elliot alleges that during a one to one meeting Mr Walker told her she needed to 'prove her worth' to employees who believed 'black staff don't work'.

She argued that this was Mr Walker conducting racism 'on behalf of' Arts Council England.

However, he said there was a discussion about Miss Elliot proving herself but that it had nothing to do with race.

EJ Smart said he was 'not persuaded' that Mr Walker had said 'black staff don't work' and that this conversation could not be linked to the 2019 comments.

Miss Elliot also claimed that she had been harassed when her co-worker, Chole Brooks, said at a 2018 away day that she was 'disappointed' Miss Elliot wasn't there because she wanted to learn more about hip-hop music and culture.

The rapper told the tribunal that she viewed this as being asked to do more work because of her race.

The tribunal found this was not a 'reasonable' view because it was not a requirement to do more work just an 'expression of desire' to talk to Miss Elliot about her specialism.

Lastly, she also complained about an 'insulting and unsolicited' email sent while she was on sick leave, the way her occupational health assessments were handled and a lack of support from her manager.

These were all dismissed by the tribunal.

In August 2021 Miss Elliot resigned from Arts Council England and her employment ended the following month.

An Arts Council England spokesperson said: 'The unanimous judgment of the tribunal was that the claims against Arts Council England should be dismissed, and that Arts Council England staff acted professionally and appropriately.

'We take our responsibility as custodians of taxpayers' money seriously and therefore, based on the exceptional comments of the judge on the merits of Arts Council England's case as the claimant, we sought to recover a proportion of legal costs.'
Click to expand...
Also archiving an Independent article where they swallow everything she sprouts with the credulity of children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom